We would like to thank all of the commentators for their insightful and positive reactions to our review paper [1]. Their comments touch on both theoretical and applied aspects of sub-exponential growth dynamics and the mechanisms that generate them, and have greatly enhanced and broadened the discussion. Here we aim to further discuss key points raised by Brauer [2], Danon and Brooks-Pollock [3], Allen [4], Merler [5], Champredon and Earn [6], and House [7].Brauer [2] underscores the flexibility of the generalized-growth model to capture the early transmission dynamics of infectious disease outbreaks, particularly in situations where retrospective investigations are not sufficient to elucidate the underlying mechanisms. We agree with this assessment. In real epidemic settings, gaining a complete understanding of the actual mechanisms that shape early epidemic growth could be particularly challenging in the absence of additional data to characterize contact patterns, population behavior changes, and transmission pathways (e.g., hospital vs. community transmission). This is further complicated when the epidemiology or transmission mechanisms of the infectious disease in question have not been fully elucidated. Related to this point, Danon and Brooks-Pollock [3] argue for the application of data science approaches to further our understanding of the processes that shape epidemic outbreaks, which, in turn could lead to improved predictive models. We could not agree more with this suggestion. Mathematical epidemiology has made important strides in recent years precisely because new and better data sources are becoming available. These data sources include electronic records containing information about the health of individuals such as primary care visits, hospitalizations, and deaths. In addition, DOI of original article: http://dx.